Another Discoveroid Revival Meeting

The Discovery Institute constantly touts their “theory” of intelligent design as a new scientific paradigm — one which goes beyond what they sneeringly refer to as “materialism.” To promote their “science,” they behave in a way that is utterly unlike the way advocates of actual science theories have ever behaved before.

The last century has seen numerous new theories — relativity, the Big Bang, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, etc., that encountered initial resistance, but which were eventually accepted — after going through the usual ordeals faced by any new theory: (1) publication in peer-reviewed journals; (2) vigorous debates among knowledgeable scientists; and (3) the gradual accumulation of verifiable evidence supporting the new theory, which was incompatible with any competing theory.

The Discoveroids do it differently. First, they concocted their “theory” for obvious legal and religious purposes — see What is the “Wedge Document”?. Second, they embarked on a public relations campaign, including various “documentaries” extolling the alleged virtues of their ‘theory” and the allegedly ruthless tactics of their opponents, who are claimed to be leftists, atheists, materialists, and “Darwin lobbyists.” Third, they attempt to get arguments for their “theory” legislated into public school classrooms — see Curmudgeon’s Guide to “Academic Freedom” Laws.

Another Discoveroid tactic is to build grass-roots support for their “theory” by conducting numerous revivals around the country, usually at churches and bible colleges, but sometimes at rented facilities at universities (which they publicize as university conferences). These events serve an additional purpose — it enables Discoveroid lobbyists to identify local politicians, who are often instrumental in promoting creationist bills in their state legislatures.

The Discoveroids recently announced yet another creationist revival: Register for Christian Scientific Society Conference, Hosted at Discovery Institute, November 13-14. It has no author’s byline. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

The Christian Scientific Society (CSS) is an ID-friendly organization launched by University of Pittsburgh physicist David Snoke to foster discussion among scientists about Christianity and science.

We’ve written about that guy before — see David Snoke: Creationist Physicist? He and Behe co-authored an article, which was mentioned in the Kitzmiller opinion — see Kitzmiller v. Dover: Michael Behe’s Testimony. Back to the Discoveroids’ announcement:

While it’s a Christian group, their conferences are open to the public, and one does not have to be a Christian, or an advocate of intelligent design, to attend. Discovery Institute is pleased to announce that we’ll be hosting their regional conference on November 13-14 at our offices in downtown Seattle. The theme of the meeting will be “What is Information?”

What is “information”? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! See Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information.

Then they list the speakers with brief descriptions of each. Among the worthies, besides Snoke, will be Doug Axe, Biologic Institute (the Discoveroids’ very own creation science lab), and Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist.

They give a link where you can go to register, so if you’re in the mood for some of that ol’ fashioned, down-home, foot-stompin’, hand-clappin’, psalm-singin’, floor-rollin’, rafter-shakin’, old-time creationism, now you know where to find it.

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

15 responses to “Another Discoveroid Revival Meeting

  1. Christianity….forbidden fruit, light invented after plants….talking dragons….talking donkeys….global flood….virgin birth….walking on water…pigs cast into sea after having demons cast into them….zombies rising from their graves….YEP!!!! Sounds like science to me.!!

  2. One look at the “Christian Scientific Society” shows you that it’s really the “CHRISTIAN ‘scientific society’ ” composed of Bible-thumping godbots of the inerrant-Bible, young earth creationist type. Total bunch of losers. Advisory board has Ann “Green Screen” Gauger to give you a sense of their academic quality.

  3. The Discovery Institute is hosting the Christian Scientific Society conference at its headquarters.

    How long do you think it will be until they bleat again about how people are wrong to call them creationists?

  4. Right from the CSS website, here are their keywords:

    “Christianity and science”, “science and Christianity”, “Christian view of science”, “Bible and science”, “science and the Bible”, “old earth creationism”, “science and theology”, “Christians in science”, “scientists who believe the Bible”

    Hey, nothing but science and following the evidence, wherever in the Bible it leads!

  5. Interesting how this is a “Christian” society. Not merely theist. Not even with the modern “Judeo-Christian”. Would might think that they would be open to all non-materialists, non-naturalists, even the non-theistic.
    I think that there is little need for yet another club for the usual.
    Do you expect that there will be someone presenting a talk like, “Toward Formulating an Alternative Account for Some of the Variety in Life”? Or “(such and such a number) Years Later, What Has Been Learned?” Or even,
    “What We Need to Change To Get Respect”?

  6. Yes, always required to register for the Dishonesty Institute events. They get your personal information, add you to their non-cancel-able mailing list, beg constantly for donations, etc. And they can also scope you out as a pro or anti Intelligent Designism person.

  7. michaelfugate

    Pay no attention to the bible-thumper behind the curtain…

  8. Pay no attention to the bible-thumper behind the curtain…

    It’s not even subtle any more. Every board member is a flaming Biblical creationist.

  9. Derek Freyberg

    “Casey has long been one of the most visible public faces of Discovery Institute and will speak on whether semantic information, rather than functional information, is necessary to infer design.”
    What happened to complex specified information? Has it been double-secret superseded? Inquiring minds want to know. [Maybe this is the DiscoTute’s version of historical science versus observational science – in which case inquiring minds really do want to know, as it will presage all kinds of nonsense writing].
    It almost makes me wish I lived in Seattle, so I could just ride the bus (or walk, or whatever) to the meeting and see (1) what the DiscoTute HQ looks like, and (2) what it is these people talk about among themselves.
    But I live a thousand or so miles south, and it’s not worth it.
    But as DavidK points out above, this is like getting on the Scientology mailing list.

  10. Er . . . what exactly is “semantic information” in this context, other than bafflegab?

  11. Derek Freyberg

    @Eric Lipps:
    A good question.
    “Semantic” (per Google search) is “relating to meaning in language or logic” – sounds good to me, my wife’s Webster’s 9th New Collegiate says more or less the same. So “semantic information” is information relating to meaning in language or logic.
    The DiscoTute are thin on logic, so let’s go with “relating to meaning in language”. So “semantic information” is “information relating to meaning in language” – which I, as an amateur in such matters, take to mean “information that has some meaning/significance other than only to the enlightened“.
    “Functional information” remains undefined.
    So how do we distinguish “functional information” from “semantic information”? – inquiring minds still want to know.

  12. Derek Freyberg

    Hey, SC, what happened to my and markers around “only to the enlightened”?

    [*Voice from above*] There weren’t any, but there are now. Happy?

  13. Derek Freyberg

    OK, it seems that anything in between angle brackets, other than the magic words, disappears along with the brackets. I’ll figure out another way to mark quotes next time, if I don’t want to use ” and “.

  14. semantic has a precise meaning in linguistics and logic, marking a distinction from syntactic. For example, semantics is concerned with truth, while syntactics with provability, and that particular distinction is important in describing Godel’s famous theorems.
    Obviously this is a well defined and important concept and has nothing to do with any of the advertising slogans of the “Intelligent Design” social-political campaign. Just as they borrow the expression “paradigm shift” with no more concern than to make their prose appear learned, without incurring the burden of work that learning requires.

  15. I’m astonished that they have room in their offices to host a conference. The “conference” must consist of, what, 20-30 people? There’s no mention of a dinner with a keynote speaker, breakout sessions, etc.

    Also, googling the “Christian Scientific Society” reveals that they have a website, on which they proclaim that they are biblical literalists.

    Fine bedfellows for the DI.